Former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley leaves the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg after pleading guilty to endangering the welfare of a child in the alleged Jerry Sandusky cover-up case.
March 13, 2017.
Dan Gleiter | dgleiter@pennlive.com

In little more than an hour of testimony, Curley -- who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of child endangerment last week -- owned up to having a guilty conscience about his own role in the Sandusky scandal.

He verified that he, Spanier, and former senior vice president Gary Schultz collectively agreed to a plan of action that would keep their 2001 shower room report about Sandusky as a matter that they would deal with in-house.

But, speaking for himself, he also suggested that the three former administrators took that course of action because they did not believe they were dealing with sexual or criminal activity.

Asked point-blank by Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte whether the version of events he heard about the 2001 shower incident from either eyewitness Mike McQueary or late Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno - who McQueary first reported to - was described as sexual activity, Curley said: "No sir."

If in fact Curley heard something less severe, or at least reported it to Spanier that way, that would tend to help draw a defensive buffer around the former president, who was always only getting his information about the case from Curley and Schultz.

Later, Spanier's lawyer Sam Silver also drew out this interesting post-plea defense from Curley of the Penn Staters' actions in 2001:

"In 2001, you thought the actions taken (regarding Sandusky) were appropriate?"

"Did you believe you were taking steps that would result in the endangerment of children?" Silver continued.

"No sir," Curley concluded. "We did what we thought was appropriate, and we took action."

In fact, the action -- because it did not include alerting police or child welfare officials to McQueary's report -- became a major missed opportunity for law enforcement that permitted Sandusky to find at least three more victims.

Curley closed by explaining his guilty plea last Monday this way, keeping it very personal:

"I pleaded guilty because I felt like I should have done more," Curley said, wrapping up his 75 minutes on the stand. "At the end of the day, I wished I would have done more, didn't ask enough questions, so I pled guilty."

The question at the heart of this case is, however, did Spanier have enough information to know that other children would be harmed?

The former president's defense, in large part, rests on the notion that he was never informed the McQueary incident was a sexual assault.

There's now no direct evidence that he received that kind of report from Curley.

Curley said his first report of the incident came from Paterno, whom he said characterized McQueary as uncomfortable with what Paterno described "horseplay" and "wrestling in the shower."

Curley said when and Schultz met with McQueary several days later, they set the framework for that conversation by relating what they had heard from Paterno, and asked McQueary if they had it right.

But McQueary also had a chance to describe the incident in his own voice, Curley added. McQueary testified Tuesday that he made clear he felt he was seeing sexual abuse of some kind, and stressed that he has never used the term horseplay.

So the questions raised are:

Was there a communications gap between what McQueary felt he saw and what he conveyed to Paterno -- whom he has described as someone he was hesitant to discuss sexual issues with?

Were Curley and Schultz eager to adopt Paterno's terms, either because it was more comfortable for everyone going forward, or because McQueary didn't do an effective enough job in coloring in the details?

Whatever the case, two other witnesses who heard retellings of the incident from Curley and Schultz also testified Tuesday that they were not made definitely aware the incident was a sexual assault.

What Curley testified that he felt he was dealing with with Sandusky, he said, were "boundary issues."

Jurors will get one more chance to get to the bottom of these questions this afternoon, when Schultz -- who also pleaded guilty last week -- is expected to take the stand.

If there was a high point for the prosecution Tuesday morning, it was probably this:

Carefully walked through the Feb. 27-28 email chains by Schulte, Curley made clear that the final course of action for dealing with the McQueary report was fully endorsed by himself, Spanier and Schultz.

That could be enough to prove a conspiracy.

But if the jurors find that there was no child endangerment in the first place, that point will be moot.

From a historical standpoint, Curley's testimony -- riddled with contentions that he couldn't recall specifics -- added little to other key questions in the case, like the "after talking it over with Joe (Paterno)" conversation on Feb. 26 that he referenced by email when he proposed keeping the McQueary report in-house.

Asked Wednesday about what Paterno said in that conversation, in which Curley presumably updated the coach on an initial plan that called for notifying child welfare officials, Curley said only: "I don't recall the specific conversation or what his reaction was."

But Curley did take sole ownership of making the suggestion to drop the part of the plan that called for taking McQueary's report to child welfare officials.